Standing Armies and the Second Amendment

This is a discussion on Standing Armies and the Second Amendment within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by Nova
I think we should wait until we're attacked before we mobilize our armed forces.
I take it then you approve of ...

I think we should wait until we're attacked before we mobilize our armed forces.

I take it then you approve of operations in Afghanistan?

Since then, we've maintained a standing army and lost nearly every operation we've attempted (mainly Vietnam and Iraq).

I'm confused. What do you mean by "standing army"? If the Regular Army meets that definition, we have had one since the civil war.

Let's say we got rid of our standing army and sent everyone home. Instead, we had various rag-tag militias all across the United States, funded by their own state/local governments. Let's say Russia declared war on us with a surprise attack akin to Pearl Harbor.

We'd declare war that day and we'd start drafting people - most people would volunteer.

I am an army career counselor; my duties at times require retention of soldiers and acquiring new ones. I don't think there would be that many volunteers.

We'd direct our economy to building tanks, ships, etc just like in WWII.

Planes these days have greater range, and can carry more destructive payloads. I doubt much of our industry would survive long enough to be retooled and produce modern equipment.

We'd obviously have a lot of state/local militias that own their own planes, weapons, and equipment.

History shows this doesn't work well. Were it not for the federal mandate and federal funding, do you really think that a state militia would be to par with the current Guard and Regular components?

All of the people on this forum spend money on handguns and rounds, voluntarily, to provide for their own safety. It's not that crazy to picture yourself voluntarily buying an automatic weapon and ammo for it, meeting up with a legal militia on the weekends and doing drills, like the National Guard. 2 weekends a month, 1 month a year or whatever.

But it is not reasonable for them to show up with with a machine gun (not the same thing as an automatic weapon) body armor, night vision, gas mask, and a slew of other gear used on a modern battlefield. While some of us may have the means to invest tens of thousands of dollars on individual equipment, most do not.

...
How did the Mujahideen defeat the USSR? A bunch of rag-tag nobodies against the 2nd most powerful nation on earth? They shot down some helicopters with precision RPGs. We could certainly do better than that.

Rocket Propelled Grenades (RPG) are significantly different from Stinger guided anti-aircraft missiles. These missiles were provided by the U.S. along with a whole bunch of other equipment, training, and funding. Prior to U.S. involvement, they weren't doing so well.
Your point however is valid in that a motivated and dedicated force with limited equipment can render a better equipped force unwilling to continue to fight.

The thing I don't feel safe with is a massive Federal Government pointing a gun at me if I don't pay my income tax to fund abortion, war, and whatever godless activities they have concocted next.

Would this not be the function of the IRS and FBI rather than the army?

And for all your bluster about Madison, all of his quotes were in opposition to a LARGE standing army, or an army in concert with an overgrown and tyrannical executive. He was a part of the group that compromised on the matter, ending with what we have today; an army that must be "reformed" every two years by Congress in the form of bills to pay for it.

Of course, "large" is about as well defined as "reasonable restrictions," so you can go ahead and argue about how big the army should be or how much we should spend on it, but it is utterly, crystal clear that the "standing army" meets Constitutional muster, just as it was intended.

Seriously, pick a new paranoia to cling to, this one will give you no traction whatsoever...

"Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few."

-James Madison

I ask you. How many wars have we fought against people in the past 50 years that did not attack us? Why do we continue to support an army with our tax dollars when we derive absolutely no benefit from it. Forget about whether or not it's Constitutional. What benefit do I derive from paying tax dollars to send people over to the middle east?

Madison points out that armies are an instrument for bringing the many under the domination of the few. He includes debts and taxes with that. Do we not have all three?

And don't give me that "because they defend yer freedom" line. They don't. I fail to see how bombing Baghdad had anything to do with my freedom. Saddam was in no position to invade the United States and take away my freedom.

"There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army."

-Thomas Jefferson

Is our army restrained but for well-defined cases?

Or is our army capable of going anywhere in the world and destroying any number of lives because our President says so?

Our President is capable of sending troops anywhere he wants without congressional approval. Furthermore, the utter cowards in Congress refuse to use the power of the purse to stop him because they will be rebuked as "not supporting the troops." There is no way I will be convinced that the cowards in Congress are funding the wars for any reason but that they want to "look good." They refuse to take a courageous stand on this issue, and that is why their approval ratings are a joke.

"Altho' a large standing Army in time of Peace hath ever been considered dangerous to the liberties of a Country, yet a few Troops, under certain circumstances, are not only safe, but indispensably necessary."

-George Washington

The Founders supported having a military that could be drowned by the weight of the militias if they had to.

Do we have that today?

If the Armed Forces decided to control the American people, could the American people stop them?

The answer is resoundingly No. So I'll just continue to put my full faith and credit in the United States Military just as the Founders said I should! Oh wait, they didn't say that at all...

Nor will I make any disagreeable comments about the warrior ethic  I myself subscribe to it. Then why would old soldiers like George Washington and me speak against standing armies?

Hint  its not because the soldiers are bad guys. Its much simpler even than that. It is the simple fact that in the world that we are living in, freedom requires that very warrior ethic we seem to assume is the exclusive province of national military forces.

Seems to me the guy from the article doesn't have so much a grip about the standing military, but how it's used...

Let's say my friend Harry has no problem with Big Government (in fact he loves Big Government because it gives him free healthcare) - but he loves the 2nd amendment and likes to CC. Suddenly, that Big Government has an opinion about Harry's right to CC - Harry can't do it anymore because Big Government (in all its infinite wisdom) tells him "no."

It's not the Big Government Harry doesn't like - it's what that Big Government can do to him that Harry doesn't like. If the government were small, it couldn't tell Harry not to CC because it would be forced to follow the Constitution...or else

Reliably, you can read history and look at what standing armies do to citizens. After a thorough reading of history, the Founders concluded that standing armies almost always destroy liberty.

In Rome, standing armies represented a major threat to the Republic - the only way to maintain the Republic was to keep sending the armies off on far-flung imperial expeditions so the generals didn't get antsy and declare themselves dictator in Rome.

You know, far-flung expeditions. Kind of like how we send our military off to Iraq and Afghanistan so our boys can run over IEDs while the Iraqis and Afghanis elect terrorists.

Let's say my friend Harry has no problem with Big Government (in fact he loves Big Government because it gives him free healthcare) - but he loves the 2nd amendment and likes to CC. Suddenly, that Big Government has an opinion about Harry's right to CC - Harry can't do it anymore because Big Government (in all its infinite wisdom) tells him "no."

It's not the Big Government Harry doesn't like - it's what that Big Government can do to him that Harry doesn't like. If the government were small, it couldn't tell Harry not to CC because it would be forced to follow the Constitution...or else .

What does the size of government have to do with whether Harry can CC or not. If I am not mistaken, CC laws are based on individual states. If you think differently then please post something that states otherwise. FYI, the latest gov action regarding CC was allowing you to CC in nationl parks, wow, they are trampling your rights get the signs out. Call the press.

Reliably, you can read history and look at what standing armies do to citizens. After a thorough reading of history, the Founders concluded that standing armies almost always destroy liberty. In Rome, standing armies represented a major threat to the Republic - the only way to maintain the Republic was to keep sending the armies off on far-flung imperial expeditions so the generals didn't get antsy and declare themselves dictator in Rome.

Reliably you can read history and find what standing armies do to citizens in countries they invade, ie the Roman Empire that got too big for its britches. The folks in Rome had a grand time during their expansion. There was all kinds of debauchery, partying, and unspeakable actions.

You know, far-flung expeditions. Kind of like how we send our military off to Iraq and Afghanistan so our boys can run over IEDs while the Iraqis and Afghanis elect terrorists

So you gripe is against the wars in Iraq and Afgahnistan? Then say so, that argument has nothing to do with standing armies. I wasn't for the war in Iraq, neither were some other folks, but that doesn't mean that I don't think in todays society you do away with our trained military, and keep our country safe.

All this has nothing to do with your original post about the military and how it is somehow going to affect your rights stated in the 2A.

If you can, by any stretch of the imagination, please post some relevant information or examples of how the US military has done anything to keep you from exercising your 2A right.

Just remember that shot placement is much more important with what you carry than how big a bang you get with each trigger pull.www.ddchl.com
Texas CHL Instructor
Texas Hunter Education Instructor
NRA Instructor

We've sent our troops over seas to keep the generals from taking over.

Got it.

You know, if you had told me on September 10, 2001 that Al Qaeda was going to commandeer some 747s and run them into the World Trade Center, I would've said you were crazy. I might've gotten a little skeptical with you, kind of like this...

There was an agent in the FBI field office in Phoenix who offered information about some Arabs who were getting pilot lessons...learning how to take off a plane. He got shouted down by know-it-alls who said he was "profiling" etc. It's a good thing we fund such a large National Law Enforcement system to keep us safe!

Now the twin towers are gone.

The 9/11 Commission concluded that we had a failure of imagination.

So I'm an honest American using his imagination, but also considering what those kooky Founding Fathers said.

And it doesn't take a lot of imagination to read history, and see what standing armies accomplished. Destruction of freedom.

I ask you. How many wars have we fought against people in the past 50 years that did not attack us? Why do we continue to support an army with our tax dollars when we derive absolutely no benefit from it. Forget about whether or not it's Constitutional. What benefit do I derive from paying tax dollars to send people over to the middle east?

Did the army decide to go to the middle east? I could have sworn that congress and the executive made that decision. The military is a tool for a specific use. The employment of that tool is entirely up to the operator (in this case government).

As an short exercise, let's substitute a person for the government, and a handgun for the army. If a person aims his handgun at another, then pulls the trigger, do we hold the gun responsible or the person?

While your concerns are reasonable, I believe they are misdirected. The army is not trained, equipped or organized in such a manner to be an instrument of oppression (not that it could be employed as such, just not ideally designed)

And don't give me that "because they defend yer freedom" line. They don't.

That may upset many, but I completely agree with you. The army's business is to be a tool for the government. The purpose of the government is to secure rights (as outlined by the declaration of independence). Our firearms don't protect our homes, we do by employing firearms (and other means of course).

Is our army restrained but for well-defined cases?

Or is our army capable of going anywhere in the world and destroying any number of lives because our President says so?

"...According to regulations and the uniform code of military justice."
Guess which branch wrote the UCMJ?

Our President is capable of sending troops anywhere he wants without congressional approval.

He is capable of ordering them. They won't get far without money for fuel. Which brings us to your next point:

Furthermore, the utter cowards in Congress refuse to use the power of the purse to stop him because they will be rebuked as "not supporting the troops." There is no way I will be convinced that the cowards in Congress are funding the wars for any reason but that they want to "look good." They refuse to take a courageous stand on this issue, and that is why their approval ratings are a joke.

So your actual problem is with the government, and not with the army.

"Altho' a large standing Army in time of Peace hath ever been considered dangerous to the liberties of a Country, yet a few Troops, under certain circumstances, are not only safe, but indispensably necessary."

-George Washington

The Founders supported having a military that could be drowned by the weight of the militias if they had to.

Do we have that today?

For every 1000 people in the U.S., there are approximately 11 service members. The 11 includes active, guard, reserve, navy, coast guard, etc.

My rough estimate is that militia contains approximately 63,000,000 compared to the 539,675 of the regular army. Still worried?

If the Armed Forces decided to control the American people, could the American people stop them?

Yes, but only if they had sufficient motivation and dedication.

The answer is resoundingly No. So I'll just continue to put my full faith and credit in the United States Military just as the Founders said I should! Oh wait, they didn't say that at all...

If the militia is sufficient to repel the invading Russians, why would they have such difficulty with our standing army?

Did the army decide to go to the middle east? I could have sworn that congress and the executive made that decision. The military is a tool for a specific use. The employment of that tool is entirely up to the operator (in this case government).

As an short exercise, let's substitute a person for the government, and a handgun for the army. If a person aims his handgun at another, then pulls the trigger, do we hold the gun responsible or the person?

While your concerns are reasonable, I believe they are misdirected. The army is not trained, equipped or organized in such a manner to be an instrument of oppression (not that it could be employed as such, just not ideally designed)

I believe individuals and government are two very different entities. I see what you're saying: guns don't kill people, people kill people. "Militaries don't abridge my rights, governments do."

However, individuals have a right to keep and bear arms. The government does not. If we dismantled our military, the government would not be able to willy nilly send it off on expeditions when it got the whim. The government would be forced to do the hard thing: declare war and draft people.

The government is certainly responsible for the actions of the military. And handgun owners are responsible for their use of handguns. But the government has no Constitutional right to have a large standing military, while the handgun owner has a specific, individual right to keep and bear arms.

Gun control is unconstitutional, but military control is not. Therein lies the difference.

"...According to regulations and the uniform code of military justice."
Guess which branch wrote the UCMJ?

No idea. My only point is that our military is completely unrestrained - the president can send our military wherever he wants for a period of 60 days!

He is capable of ordering them. They won't get far without money for fuel. Which brings us to your next point:

He can send them somewhere for 60 days, as I recall. The War Powers Act, which is unconstitutional.

So your actual problem is with the government, and not with the army.

Two sides of the same coin.

For every 1000 people in the U.S., there are approximately 11 service members. The 11 includes active, guard, reserve, navy, coast guard, etc.

My rough estimate is that militia contains approximately 63,000,000 compared to the 539,675 of the regular army. Still worried?

Those 539,675 regulars have fighter jets, submarines, tanks, and most importantly, nukes. Yes.

Yes, but only if they had sufficient motivation and dedication.

If the US Military wanted to, they could break the rules of engagement etc and wipe out every man, woman and child in the entire country.

Let's say there's a group of us who want to fight our dictatorship so we huddle together and grab some rifles. The Army in turn firebombs our entire village. They win. There's no amount of motivation and dedication to win that struggle - just sheer firepower.

If the militia is sufficient to repel the invading Russians, why would they have such difficulty with our standing army?

I was speaking hypothetically. Assuming we disbanded our Federal standing army and replaced it with militias, we could redirect our efforts into building very strong and capable militias. Militias that are just as capable as the Federal Government's standing army, but that are not being controlled by Washington, D.C.

individuals have a right to keep and bear arms. The government does not.

The government does have a right as provided by the constitution. The right is not unalienable, but a right nonetheless.

No idea. My only point is that our military is completely unrestrained - the president can send our military wherever he wants for a period of 60 days!

The military is not unrestrained. They must function within the guidelines of the law (as provided by regulations and the uniform code of military justice [written by congress BTW]). A soldier is obligated to disobey an unlawful order. The text I quoted is from the oath of enlistment.

So your actual problem is with the government, and not with the army.

Two sides of the same coin.

Is the robber and the gun two sides of the same coin? The army does not elect to go to war. They do not impose the rules of war. When they are ordered to war, they war. When not ordered to war, they do not war. There have of course throughout history been exceptions, but few that I can think of in my lifetime.

Those 539,675 regulars have fighter jets, submarines, tanks, and most importantly, nukes.

539,675 refers to the regular army, not the military as a whole. Tanks, yes. Fighter jets, subs, and nukes? not so much.

If the US Military wanted to, they could break the rules of engagement etc and wipe out every man, woman and child in the entire country.

And any one of us who carry concealed could shoot someone over a parking space. I am a little offended that you think I might decide one day to kill innocent people.

Let's say there's a group of us who want to fight our dictatorship so we huddle together and grab some rifles. The Army in turn firebombs our entire village. They win. There's no amount of motivation and dedication to win that struggle - just sheer firepower.

You asked, "If the Armed Forces decided to control the American people, could the American people stop them?". Control ≠ destroy. If India could overthrow it's occupiers without violence, I think America can do the same with only deer rifles.

The military is completely dependent on the rest of the nation. We do not build our own weapons, refine our own fuel, or program our own computers.

Soldiers are people too. If public sentiment is against the government, the military will roughly mirror the rest of the nation.

The standing army and the militia serve different roles in the defense of the nation. The two are not mutually exclusive.

The military could certainly stand to be reduced, but I believe completely disbanding it is the wrong move. If liberty is the concern, your primary focus should be on the elected officials.